There's a lot to like about the many new cars that are coming out that get 40 miles per gallon or more. The NY Times (April 24, 2011) reports that the Civic, Mazda, Hyundai, Kia , and VW all are in this range. As noted in my previous post, the Chevy Cruze is also there. And, of course, the Prius. These cars will save consumers a lot of money, reduce our oil imports, and help clean our air. But there is one little problem--THEY WILL DESTROY CIVILIZATION AS WE KNOW IT. Sorry to be shouting about this, but I do get a little emotional.
Here's the problem: If the average car drives 12,000 miles per year, it will use 300 gallons of gas at 40 mpg. Each gallon of gas produces 20 pounds of CO2 so that is three tons of CO2 per car per year, not even counting the energy for producing the gas, which is substantial (I'll work on that). Since the planet can only absorb one ton per person,* which is already more than we use for producing food and heating our homes, three tons per car is just three tons too much. Even 80 miles per gallon would produce over 1 1/2 tons per car, which is 1 1/2 tons too much. More efficient fossil fuel cars are not going to stop climate change.
As argued throughout this blog, the answer is to convert the cars to electric and to generate the electicity with solar panels or other renewable sources. The technology is here. It's a matter of political will.
*"Last year humans emitted 31.5 billion metric tons of CO2, including about 20 tons per person in the U.S. Of this about 18 billion tons stayed in the atmosphere. We know this for a fact since the CO2 level increased by 2.3 ppm and it takes 7.81 billion tons to raise the CO2 level by one ppm. "
This quote is from the paper by myself and Bond Yee on global warming and electric cars also referenced in the sidebar to this blog.
Here's the problem: If the average car drives 12,000 miles per year, it will use 300 gallons of gas at 40 mpg. Each gallon of gas produces 20 pounds of CO2 so that is three tons of CO2 per car per year, not even counting the energy for producing the gas, which is substantial (I'll work on that). Since the planet can only absorb one ton per person,* which is already more than we use for producing food and heating our homes, three tons per car is just three tons too much. Even 80 miles per gallon would produce over 1 1/2 tons per car, which is 1 1/2 tons too much. More efficient fossil fuel cars are not going to stop climate change.
As argued throughout this blog, the answer is to convert the cars to electric and to generate the electicity with solar panels or other renewable sources. The technology is here. It's a matter of political will.
*"Last year humans emitted 31.5 billion metric tons of CO2, including about 20 tons per person in the U.S. Of this about 18 billion tons stayed in the atmosphere. We know this for a fact since the CO2 level increased by 2.3 ppm and it takes 7.81 billion tons to raise the CO2 level by one ppm. "
Even if we reduce emissions to 13 billion tons, about half of that would stay in the atmosphere, leading to an increase in CO2 by about 1 ppm. Unless some new method of geo-engineering, such as promotion of growth of phytoplankton, is developed, only an increase in forestation will increase the earth’s ability to absorb CO2. That scenario is very challenging given human patterns of increasing development and consumption. Given the uncertainty of all of this, Joseph Romm, author of Hell and High Water, recommends a goal of eight billion tons of CO2 per year as a maximum emission level.
This quote is from the paper by myself and Bond Yee on global warming and electric cars also referenced in the sidebar to this blog.
Since the earth can only absorb 8 billion tons of CO2 and there will soon be 8 billion people on earth, our goal has to be to reduce CO2 emissions to one ton per person per year--anything more than that will continue to increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, leading to climate chaos.
No comments:
Post a Comment